Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: kochman Date: Nov 5, 2008 9:43am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: VOTE!

Mr. Tell, sure we can remain civil. I appreciate your comments, but I think you have the times a bit of, but I guess some of this is opinion.

The turning point on the Eastern Front was surely Stalingrad. Our contributions, by your words, really made an impact starting in 1943. Of course, Stalingrad ended early in 1943. However, the ability to capitalize further on that turning point was surely effected by the support of the USA.

I don't think the turning point for Britain was the BoB. I think it was El Alamein, fighting Rommel's Africa Corps and finally winning, leading to the drive which, shortly afterward backed up by the USA, led to the end for the 3rd Reich.

Either way, we kept England afloat before we even had a presence there, with our naval contributions, shipping, etc.

I have always found it odd that we would not have entered into WW2 without Japan attacking us. I find it even odder, and incredibly stupid, that Hitler then declared war on us! Thank goodness he made such mistakes, but man, what a dorkus. Seriously bad move.

Regarding the size of Germany... I know the Grossdeutschland was much larger... but I don't accept that as its official borders, as those were subverted and conquered lands. I consider it pre-1938 Germany, klienedeutschland. So that is just a slight difference. The Russians surely paid the highest price for the eventual victory, but I truly believe without the support of their allies they would have lost to Germany. They almost lost as it was! 1941, saved by General Winter.

Regarding the UK and speaking German... I don't think the Brits would have been conquered, but they would have lost via a peace treaty certainly not in their favor. I was kind of joking.

I can't agree with you saying that we won the Pacific alone. I just can't, that discredits too many dead allies, as a veteran, I cannot abide by that.

I do agree that the strategic bombing wasn't too helpful, and was rather cruel in fact. Inflicting death on the civilian population, something that we would NEVER do today. It is considered by many to be akin to murder. Imagine if we did such a campaign in Saddam's Iraq before rolling in... It didn't really effect production, as you noted, Speer had most factories moved underground! They were producing more fighting vehicles (tanks, planes, etc) in the end of the war than ever before, but had no fuel for them. We dropped the nukes on the Japanese with much more effect.



An aside...
Someone mentioned the strength of the British Navy... it is no longer strong. It is incredibly small these days actually, a shell of its former self.

That being said, I am glad the UK is our ally, faithful at that! We obviously have a lot in common. We just took their good system, tweaked it, and made it our own.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Nov 5, 2008 12:29pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: VOTE!

Well kid (I hope that is taken as a compliment! I really am old), I think we are more in agreement than we would have thought. Good on you for sticking with it.

Now we just have a good old debate, and from your comments, I see you have a solid grasp on many important facts, so forgive my earlier rants...

Knowing you think of ElAla for the brits as the turning point (which is of course defensible; you're in good company with Churchill and others), I see your point. Clearly, by then we had supplied the brits with a great deal and they used it effectively in that campaign. I was going with Stalingrad as the defn aspect of the overall war in Europe, and using BofB for the "UK survives initial and primary risk of invasion" and so on.

Thoroughly enjoyed the back and forth with you and NC (likewise he and I had harsh exchanges at first but came to understand one another, I like to think, much better as a result).

Keep up the good work on the history. We may come to different conclusions, and can debate the hypotheticals (I'd love to see Rob's Germanic prose to be honest), but that is as any good students of history would have it.

Sorry about the election outcome, but hope you'll forgive me a small measure of optimism after so many disappointments of late.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: kochman Date: Nov 5, 2008 3:47pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: VOTE!

Likewise Tell.
I have to say, I am actually, and surprisingly pretty optimistic about the President Elect. Yesterday I would not have thought I would be, but it turns out I am.

As I said to someone at my site, the Repubs blew it. The repubs completely betrayed the trust of their constituency and I left the republican party. Doubling spending for example. Bush was awful, and I know we have all heard enough of how Bush was bad, but let me say, as a non-republican conservative (libertarian), one more thing about Bush. Bush, as the leader of the party and the country, should have vetoed all the pork and excessive spending. He never manned up, never showed leadership enough to do that. Spend spend spend.
Iraq was pretty lame too. Having been there, I can say some good things have come of it, such as the liberation of the Kurdish people (which I took part in personally). However, was it our job to liberate them? NO!!! And, it wasn't even the main reason for going! Just a beneficial by-product.

I have given Obama a personal clean slate, and hope that he will do what he campaigned on (mostly anyhow), because it was pretty centrist. As I am one of those drooling gun owners, I hope he doesn't change those laws, or all I will have left is my own drool.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Nov 5, 2008 4:06pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: VOTE!

That's the spirit. You youngsters are the hope and the future, so keep at it.